Care to draw the line leading from small-numerical-sample-indicates-A to stating-A-means-nobody-nevernevernever? Seriously.

Eric is quite right. My reference to him was to show that the comment was directed to him. He and I are different people. Neither one of us is the other.

Marcel,

“Uh, no, it wasn’t.”

Oh yes it was

“Uh, no, he didn’t”

Oh yes he did.

“Uh, no, it won’t.”

Oh yes, it will.

Holly,

“Your retreat into flowery (really pompous) language. . . ”

If you’re talking to me, I’ve never used flowery language in my life. As for pompous language, well this is a legal blog, is it not?

So, no offense taken from Joe Slater. And I agree with Marcel Kincaid.

¡Ay(y), caramba!

@Eric Fink
“Your comment was the equivalent of saying that no one may criticize a woman.”

Uh, no, it wasn’t.

“This might work in academia, but you’re in the blogoshere now. If you hope to be successful, you will have to take your game to a higher level.”

This should have been a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I fear it wasn’t.

“In your second comment you criticize Justice Scalia for the same things that others have criticized Judge Sotomayor for.”

Uh, no, he didn’t.

“If you believe the criticism of Judge Sotomayor is based on the fact that she’s a woman, it will take some fancy footwork for you to get around the objection that your criticism of Justce Scalia is based on stereotypes of Italian men.”

Uh, no, it won’t.

One thing I did find myself wondering was how Justice Calabresi’s various lines of questioning might have been received had they come from the mouth of Sotomayor instead. Bias is tricky matter.

I am the one who used the term “lame,” and I did so because speculation about the subconscious bias of other people without any evidence is unnecessary, potentially harmful, and impossible to defend against. (”I deny that my subconscious operates how you say it does!”) By contrast, Glenn Greenwald has taken actual statements made by NRO contributors calling Sotomayor “dumb and obnoxious” multiple times. No speculation needed. The words are right there in the pixels.

I also haven’t made any assertions about Sotomayor, other than that she seemed smart and nice when I spoke to her. What I do believe is that if you’d like to judge for yourself, look at a videotape of her during oral argument at a public moot or a notable Second Circuit appeal broadcast on C-SPAN and decide for yourself. There’s nothing pompous about suggesting that we all might independently assess the direct evidence available to all before we make potentially damaging claims to others’ reputations.

And, I think Sonia Sotomayor would make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

I am the one who used the term “lame,” and I did so because speculation about the subconscious bias of other people without any evidence is unnecessary, potentially harmful, and impossible to defend against. (”I deny that my subconscious operates how you say it does!”) By contrast, Glenn Greenwald has taken actual statements made by NRO contributors calling Sotomayor “dumb and obnoxious” multiple times. No speculation needed. The words are right there in the pixels.

I also haven’t made any assertions about Sotomayor, other than that she seemed smart and nice when I spoke to her. What I do believe is that if you’d like to judge for yourself, look at a videotape of her during oral argument at a public moot or a notable Second Circuit appeal broadcast on C-SPAN and decide for yourself. There’s nothing pompous about suggesting that we all might independently assess the direct evidence available to all before we make potentially damaging claims to others’ reputations.

And, I think Sonia Sotomayor would make a fine Supreme Court Justice.

There are no such things as “scientific” surveys for issues such as these. There is no way to force a representative population of her peers to make an assessment of her character; self-selection is unavoidable. Moss at least, made the effort to base his assertions on something. Yours are still unbounded by even “insubstantial” data. Your retreat into flowery (really pompous) language after initially calling him lame suggests that you are well aware of the bogus nature of your assertions.

1. I had not at the time made any assertions about Sotomayor’s intellect. My entire point then was that, rather than speculate about the subconscious workings of others’ minds, you could examine direct evidence of her behavior on a video recording that is publicly available. The video is of the requisite context (an appellate moot), and shows what Sotomayor would be like in the presence of the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Apparently, being a legal academic means ignoring direct evidence and speculating about the bias of other people’s cognitive processes instead. I did not realize that publishing articles about employment discrimination in student-edited law reviews transformed one into a cognitive scientist whose experiments passed the rigorous standards of peer-review.

2. I may not be a legal academic, but I probably have more legal experience than you in appeals and trial courts, as well as in BigLaw. I have also met Sotomayor. I spoke to her for less than five minutes. She was nice and seemed smart.

3. I hypothesize that Scott Moss is biased in favor of reading gender bias into everything, because dealing with gender bias is one of his professional specializations. But, of course, according to Scott Moss, my hypothesis must be unsound, because I presently work in the private sector.

I know nothing about Sotomayer, but this comment is outstanding. Yeah, Moss, you may have succeeded in law school, placed articles in top journals, but now you must face the keen minds who post stuff on the internets!

Nothing personal, Eric.

I’m sure Judge Sotomayor can be very gracious in a law school moot court. But the problem is this: All you focused on in your first two comments was the fact that she was a woman. You assumed that because an unscientific survey showed a disproportion, Judge Sotomayor was unfairly criticized. You cited no other evidence, and the evidence you did bring forth to support your conclusions was, quite frankly, insubstantial.

We can quibble about the term “lame” if you choose, but using that term to describe your argument is not name calling. It simply means you did not make out a prima facie case.

Your comment was the equivalent of saying that no one may criticize a woman. This might work in academia, but you’re in the blogoshere now. If you hope to be successful, you will have to take your game to a higher level.

In your second comment you criticize Justice Scalia for the same things that others have criticized Judge Sotomayor for. If you believe the criticism of Judge Sotomayor is based on the fact that she’s a woman, it will take some fancy footwork for you to get around the objection that your criticism of Justce Scalia is based on stereotypes of Italian men.

Eric Fink,

Judge Marshall (9th Circuit) is also a Hispanic female. She doesn’t get that reaction.

As for intellect, I’ve read Sotomayor opinions, and they’re impressive. Gerard Maglioccca thinks the same and he’s one of the smartest guys I’ve ever met; until I hear that you have some expertise in a relevant field, your assertions about her “intellect” aren’t terribly persuasive.

And do you even get the irony of you using name-calling in support of your argument against someone ELSE’S “temperament”?